The Commission on Administrative Justice has summoned Chief Justice Martha Koome and nine other Judicial Service Commission (JSC) members for failing to publish details of the complaints they received against the judges and other judicial officers serving in the Judiciary.
The Ombudsman on Friday faulted JSC for failing to honour a 21-day ultimatum they issued requiring the publication of details regarding complaints for Kenyans to understand the nature of accusations being labeled against judicial officers.
“The information that we are seeking on behalf of Kenyans are the details of these compaints. The Vice Chairperson (Isaac Ruto) came out and said that they have received complaints against judges.
Where is this information? What is the nature of these complaints? We had a tribunal previously against a judge and Kenyans were able to know the nature of the accusations.
"Why is it difficult for them to make this information public,” CAJ Chairperson Charles Dulo said.
The Ombudsman said the summons for the JSC are in line with Section 252(3) of the Constitution that provides the power of summon and Section 4 & 27 of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act.
The members of the judicial commission are expected to explain why they have failed to publish the information on the complaints.
From Left: Supreme Court Judges Isaac Lenaola, Dr Smokin Wanjala, Deputy Chief Justice and Vice President of the Supreme Court Philomena Mwilu, Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court Martha Koome, Mohamed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndung'u and William Ouko in this file photo.
Photo credit: File I Nation Media Group
Mr Dulo also explained that failure by the officials to attend the summon will attract a a fine not exceeding Sh500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both under Section 52 of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act, 2011.
The ombudsman had on December 24 given the JSC 21 days to publish the complaints and petitions lodged against judicial offices, the responses received, analysis of issues and their determination, and submit a compliance report in accordance with Section 5 of the Access to Information Act.
But as of yesterday, CAJ accused JSC of taking the Ombudsman in a ‘cylic process of exchange’ that ‘does not augur well for service delivery” ever since the ultimatum was issued.
“As a creature of the Constitution, the Judiciary and JSC are required to comply with the Constitution and the law,” the Ombudsman said in a statement.
But the JSC through its Secretary Winfridah Mokaya dismissed the summons by CAJ insisting that they are “misguided, unconstitutional” insisting that the commission’s chairperson Mr Dulo has never raised any concern regarding the conduct of the judicial commission.
“Such reckless conduct undermines the rule of law, erodes public confidence in independent institutions, and disrupts the crucial work of the Judiciary.
"The JSC will not be coerced or intimidated into submitting to an unconstitutional process. It remains steadfast in protecting judicial independence and ensuring that all engagements with other institutions are conducted within the confines of the law,” JSC said in a statement.
JSC said that it has already provided an update on 700 complaints of maladministration against the Judiciary that it had received since 2019.
“The Judiciary, through a letter dated 17th February 2025, provided a comprehensive status update on each of these complaints, accompanied by a detailed report outlining their resolution. These facts underscore the Judiciary’s dedication to accountability, rendering CAJ’s demands both unnecessary and misleading,” he added.
JSC had last month said it has consistently demonstrated its commitment to transparency by publishing detailed information on the number, nature and outcomes of complaints and petitions received, in its annual reports as required by the Constitution.
“The JSC believes that mutual respect and collaboration are critical to addressing the important issues that all Constitutional Commissions are mandated to tackle and is therefore deeply concerned that the CAJ chose to issue an ultimatum through the social media,” said JSC in the statement.
The JSC also said the reports are readily accessible on the JSC website and are complemented by the State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice reports published annually on the Judiciary’s website.
